Given the restrictions on any reuse of the land, the GWSR are the only organisation outside the public sector who would even consider taking it on.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
GWSR Broadway to Honeybourne redundant track bed
- Thread starter reddragon
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
reddragon
Established Member
I was being polite.
tumbles
Member
Random question - at the Honeybourne end of the trackbed it curves around.. I'm guessing that would have to connect back up with the current spur to Long Marston? Is that NR line or private? i.e. would they have a situation a bit like Swanage getting to Wareham albeit on a far lesser scale
All pie in the sky but IF (and I do appreciate it being a big IF) they were connected up to Honeybourne I wonder if any of the companies based at Long Marston would be interested in longer span of track for testing. Not quite the double track 55mph setup that GCR have but still.. I guess it could be possible if they got that far one day.
GWSR need to play it right here though - nobody else will want that land and RPL want rid.
All pie in the sky but IF (and I do appreciate it being a big IF) they were connected up to Honeybourne I wonder if any of the companies based at Long Marston would be interested in longer span of track for testing. Not quite the double track 55mph setup that GCR have but still.. I guess it could be possible if they got that far one day.
GWSR need to play it right here though - nobody else will want that land and RPL want rid.
Don’t suppose Porterbrook would fancy chipping in for a nice long test track?!
It looks possible to move the Long Marston connection north a bit, to allow the GWSR to run into a rebuilt back platform at Honeybourne. Doing this would probably be cheaper than having to mess about with the signalling on the branch (it's currently worked by train Staff)
Is GSWR Single line at 25mph better than anything already at Long Marston? People would presumably be more interested in getting decent 60mph+ runs on the main line than trundling up and down the heritage track.
reddragon
Established Member
The difference between Toddington to Broadway being 25 mph and 60 mph is someone to pay for the safety case and increased inspections that's its it, so why not all the way north?
The line can connect directly to Honeybourne or Long Marston or both!
tumbles
Member
I wasn't too sure on basis there is a road bridge to contend with just as it starts to curve away from HB station.
Kinda playing devils advocate on the testing/LM thing but if they establish the connection who knows if someone at LM might help fund double tracking it back to Broadway so they could run at 55-60mph. Do they GCR make much from letting people test on their double track run?
fgwrich
Established Member
There would certainly be enough room for second track from the triangle up to the station, as it was originally quad track through that section (two tracks Cotswold line, 2 tracks to the triangle).
It would be theoretically possible to upgrade the GWSR from Toddington to Honeybourne to allow for higher speed running - only the section through Broadway station is jointed track using Bullhead rail, the rest of it is new flat bottom continuously welded rail on concrete sleepers. There are also some pretty lengthly straight sections along the route too, though as others have mentioned, it comes down to the costs associated with the increased inspection and safety case.
High speed running is all well and good but the additional wear and tear on the track and inspections are onerous.
As is the regime required for the rolling stock, both locomotives and multiple units and carriages. You're also into the realms of needing door locking systems.
The signalling system also needs to be designed to work at a higher speed with extra mitigations potentially required.
It is a lot of work to reduce the length of time your "attraction" takes to ride along and it has generally been concluded that it isn't worth the hassle.
As is the regime required for the rolling stock, both locomotives and multiple units and carriages. You're also into the realms of needing door locking systems.
The signalling system also needs to be designed to work at a higher speed with extra mitigations potentially required.
It is a lot of work to reduce the length of time your "attraction" takes to ride along and it has generally been concluded that it isn't worth the hassle.
Brissle Girl
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 2,655
I think the higher speeds were only discussed in the context of whether there is an option for Porterbrook to use it as a test track (and whether they would this be amenable to supporting funding of the reinstatement).
reddragon
Established Member
The question was about external test trains. I doubt that a case to run GWSR trains at 60 mph would be viable but visiting charters maybe down to Toddington.
But in order to be suitable for one train at 60mph, things like signalling etc would need to be suitable for the worst case. Moving pointwork or resignalling areas is expensive (in either time or money), even with volunteer labour and no penalty for closing the line. You'd also need things like the ballast depth and profile, sleeper spacing and rail weight to be suitable for the worst-case loads. Especially as test trains may well cause wear and tear in excess of an approved design (hence the need for testing).
Maintenance issues would of course be avoidable by limiting the heritage stock to a lower speed, but that's actually quite a small part of the issues.
Brissle Girl
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 2,655
And that would all be considered in terms of whether there was a business case for Porterbrook in collaborating with the GWSR. Stranger things have happened - look at the investment Greater Anglia made in the Mid Norfolk Railway infrastructure simply for a transition period of a couple of years.
Test trains simply require a safety case/safe system of work and can operate under a possession without using the signalling system if need be, should there be the desire to do so. You also have to ensure that there is no public access to the railway and therefore be able to close any foot crossings etc that may exist.
The GCR signalling is designed for 60 mph running but it can run at 75 mph - in either case Quorn box will be switched out and unless the train is terminating at Swithland that box will be too.
However maintenance standards have to be higher on the track in general with more thorough inspections before each test session too.
Any passenger service operating at 60 mph however, charter or self operated would be a totally different ballgame in terms of the standards required.
Presumably if it's a 25mph turnout there's not going to be a safe system of work for 60mph running?
Presumably the GWSR isn't composed entirely of 25 mph turnouts though! You tend to select the appropriate section of line.
Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but considering the Cotswold Line has been used for testing in the past year (for TfW Class 230 mileage accumulation runs), would there be much demand for the GWSR to be used for testing trains (even just occasionally)? I admit I've not looked into this so there's probably something really obvious that I'm missing out!
-Peter
-Peter
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
The biggest issues would be the lack of a main line connection and the 25mph limit.
They would be limiting factors, yes. I should have made my post a bit clearer - I should have said "would there be much demand for testing trains on the GWSR after the GWSR is connected to the mainline"
-Peter
Brissle Girl
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 2,655
I've you've read back through the thread, you'll see that both of those are considered a "given", as we are discussing the opportunity for Porterbrook to partner with GWSR in facilitating reopening of the line through to Honeybourne.
Interesting article in today's Telegraph - sorry can't link to it at the moment - regarding pausing of 'all (bridge) infilling and demoltion operations, except for .... public safety'.
Apparently Mr Shapps has a £338m budget for the purpose of bridge restoration.
Now that is good news!
Maybe someone can link to the article.
Apparently Mr Shapps has a £338m budget for the purpose of bridge restoration.
Now that is good news!
Maybe someone can link to the article.
It's already been posted in this thread:
DfT Plan to Demolish Disused Bridges and Tunnels
RAIL magazine #935 p. 17 has an item saying HE has offered to remove its concrete infill under the bridge at Great Musgrave, Cumbria, free of charge, if it's ever required to reinstate a line under it. Id imagine this is a sop to the press given the bad publicity this has generated amongst the...
www.railforums.co.uk
reddragon
Established Member
GWSR could take on Broadway to Honeybourne trackbed
Following recent developments, the trackbed beyond Broadway on the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway to Honeybourne could be secured for future railway use.
www.railadvent.co.uk
It's in the official news now.
Of course, these road-over bridges, along with others elsewhere, are in a bad condition because the DfT allowed ever increasing vehicle weights over infrastructure that was largely 60+ years old, & never designed or built for the loads.
We've gone from a max weight of 24tons in 1960 to 32tons in 1964, to 38tons in the 1980s. (axle weights have gone up as well)
Maybe DfT should be spending a small amount of money on projects that would assist with local tourism & economic development in the long term...
As for the route & Honeybourne;
it's perfectly acceptable/pretty countryside, & it's less than 6miles, much of it in a straight line. Even at 20mph, it's only about 16 minutes Honeybourne-Broadway, so it's not like it would be a long boring journey.
The LA have plans for a bigger car park at Honeybourne.
An improvement of Cotswold Line services from 1tph to 2tph looks to be in the pipeline.
There's at least 20acres of securable land at Honeybourne triangle, that could have use as a p-way depot, long-term storage, etc. (Toddington loco sheds & yard are only ~3acres)
It makes absolute sense for the GWSR to do what they can in terms of safeguarding the route north, as it's the only realistic extension & mainline connection prospect.
We've gone from a max weight of 24tons in 1960 to 32tons in 1964, to 38tons in the 1980s. (axle weights have gone up as well)
Maybe DfT should be spending a small amount of money on projects that would assist with local tourism & economic development in the long term...
As for the route & Honeybourne;
it's perfectly acceptable/pretty countryside, & it's less than 6miles, much of it in a straight line. Even at 20mph, it's only about 16 minutes Honeybourne-Broadway, so it's not like it would be a long boring journey.
The LA have plans for a bigger car park at Honeybourne.
An improvement of Cotswold Line services from 1tph to 2tph looks to be in the pipeline.
There's at least 20acres of securable land at Honeybourne triangle, that could have use as a p-way depot, long-term storage, etc. (Toddington loco sheds & yard are only ~3acres)
It makes absolute sense for the GWSR to do what they can in terms of safeguarding the route north, as it's the only realistic extension & mainline connection prospect.
When would that be achieved (and how)? (Genuinely curious)
-Peter
Report backs £200m Cotswold Line upgrade | Cotswold Line Promotion Group
A proposal to invest £200m in further improvements to the Cotswold Line, to allow extra trains to run between Oxford and Worcester by 2025, has been sent to the Department for Transport.
Ah super - thanks very muchReport backs £200m Cotswold Line upgrade | Cotswold Line Promotion Group
A proposal to invest £200m in further improvements to the Cotswold Line, to allow extra trains to run between Oxford and Worcester by 2025, has been sent to the Department for Transport.www.clpg.org.uk
Another reason for GWSR extending to Honeybourne.
-Peter
reddragon
Established Member
The railway is only liable up to 24 tons. Unfortunately, they need replacing due to corrosion not HGV weights
Report backs £200m Cotswold Line upgrade | Cotswold Line Promotion Group
A proposal to invest £200m in further improvements to the Cotswold Line, to allow extra trains to run between Oxford and Worcester by 2025, has been sent to the Department for Transport.
Sending something to the Department for Transport doesn’t mean it’s in the pipeline. If it was that simple, it would be a very big pipeline!
Last edited:
- Status